Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
epix said:
What is AND? The drawing doesn't include any AND.
Click to expand...

It does not include any AND exactly because "constant X>0" is not "constant X > AND = 0".


epix said:
There is no need for "constant X."
Click to expand...

Worng, each one of the infinitely many Koch's forms has the same value (= constant X>0) of the upper triangle's side:

4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Cardinality is is the measurement unit of the size (or magnitude) of existence, exactly as Meter is a measurement unit of Length.
Click to expand...

Doron, you say such marvelously ignorant things.

So, according to the master of the mathematical absurd, the size of the set {A,B,C} is 3 cardinalities.

Really, Doron. This is just dumb. Even a kindergarten student would know you are wrong, and you aspire to be as smart as a kindergartener, remember? Stop embarrassing yourself this way.
 
epix said:
What is AND? The drawing doesn't include any AND.
Click to expand...

The drawing doesn't include and X, either, and S only has meaning because of something in the text preceding the drawing. It's just another example of Doron's inability to express a complete thought. We are supposed to guess or otherwise divine what Doron may have meant.
 
jsfisher said:
So, according to the master of the mathematical absurd, the size of the set {A,B,C} is 3 cardinalities.
Click to expand...


{

At least 4 units of Cardinality are used to determine the "size (or magnitude) of existence" of {A,B,C}.

}

The same holds if we say that 1000 units of Meter are used to determine the "Length" of a given line.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
...4 units of Cardinality...
Click to expand...


So, in doronetics, cardinality is not longer a unit? It now has units? Make up your mind, Doron. Is it a unit of a measure or is it a measure?

The 5 year olds are all laughing at you. They are also laughing at you for not realizing the cardinality of a set with three members is three.
 
doronshadmi said:
It's just another example, of jsfisher's inability to use visual thinking, as expressed, for example in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6393884&postcount=11825 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6398859&postcount=11841.
Click to expand...


My visual abilities are apparently far superior to yours, Doron. You failed to notice that X, for example, doesn't appear anywhere in your diagram. S doesn't either, but at least you made an attempt to describe what you meant by S in text.

Doron, with your visual skills, you can see things that are not even there. Some people pay good money to induce that ability. Looks like you hallucinate without chemical assistance.
 
I missed this gem on first read:

doronshadmi said:
The same holds if we say that 1000 units of Meter are used to determine the "Length" of a given line.
Click to expand...


1000 units of Meter? Did you really write that, Doron? You've written many, many truly stupid things Doron, but this one is fantastic.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
...Analytical thinking, which is based on non-visual thinking, can't deal with the anomaly that is exposed by...

-blah blah blah-

...which demostrates that most mathematicians are unable to grasp visual thinking.

As a result the mathematical science of the past 3000 years is considered as non-visual science, just because is was developed during the years by people that are skillful by analytical thinking, which is non-visual by nature.
Click to expand...
This warrants challenge.

If I may recommend an alternate book that easily refutes this assertion, it is Clifford A Pickover's "The Math Book", which covers 250 milestones in the history of mathematics - all accompanied by often striking visual representations and artwork.

Mathematics and the arts are certainly fellow travelers if not aspects of the same thing. Analytical thinkers who are visual, are formidable and clear thinking critics of nonsense.
 
doronshadmi said:
It does not include any AND exactly because "constant X>0" is not "constant X > AND = 0".

Worng, each one of the infinitely many Koch's forms has the same value (= constant X>0) of the upper triangle's side:

[qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

The only constant in the progressive iterations is the factor according to which the combine length of the line segments increases and the factor is 4/3. Zero iteration is a line segment with length = 1.

_________________________

You cut the line into three equidistant segments

________|________|________

and erase the middle one. Then you connect both segments with two segments of the same length, the way it is shown in the top figure, That's Iteration 1:

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/content_images/fig/0670340109062.png

You see 4 equidistant line segments, and that means the combine length = 4/3 (The length of the initial "non-bended" line is 3/3). The combine length of the segments for Iteration 2 right bellow is (4/3)2, for Iteration 3 the combined length is (4/3)3 and so on. In general, the combined length of the nth iteration is (4/3)n, where you can think of 4/3 as a constant.

Your triangle restricts the progression of the combined length given by the exponential growth. Can you compute the combined length for each iteration inscribed into the triangle? You need to do that to come up with the constant you are talking about. See, Pi is a constant, and as such, it has its numeric representation. Your constant X should have numerical representation as well. What's that number, Doron? And what is the combined length of the line segments for each iteration inscribed into the eq. triangle if its side s = 1? Do some number crunching for a change.

Btw, there is no cardinality, only papacy.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
My visual abilities are apparently far superior to yours, Doron. You failed to notice that X, for example, doesn't appear anywhere in your diagram.
Click to expand...
In other words, you can't see anything in the following diagram, that has orange color:

4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg
 
epix

S=2(a+b+c+d+...) and the finite constant value > 0, do not exist in:
0670340109062.png


S=2(a+b+c+d+...) and the finite constant value > 0, exist in:
4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
Kopji said:
Analytical thinkers who are visual, are formidable and clear thinking critics of nonsense.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that the best is to be both Analytical and Visual thinker.

But this is not the case with parsons like jsfisher or The Man.
 
doronshadmi said:
epix

S=2(a+b+c+d+...) and the finite constant value > 0, do not exist in:
[qimg]http://www.emeraldinsight.com/content_images/fig/0670340109062.png[/qimg]

S=2(a+b+c+d+...) and the finite constant value > 0, exist in:
[qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
What is the numerical value of the "constant" that you claim exists in your drawing providing the side of the triangle = 1? LOL
 
Last edited:
epix said:
What is the numerical value of the "constant" that you claim exists in your drawing providing the side of the triangle = 1? LOL
Click to expand...
It does not matter, it can be any constant and finite value > 0.

jsfisher or The Man may claim that there exists Koch's form with infinite constant value.

In that case there must be a form of constant size > 0, that is entirely defined by forms of 0 sizes, which is definably Reductio ad absurdum, because no amount of only 0 sizes defines a size (finite or not), which is > 0.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
It does not matter, it can be any constant and finite value > 0.

jsfisher or The Man may claim that there exists Koch's form with infinite constant value.

In that case there must be a form of constant size > 0, that is entirely defined by forms of 0 sizes, which is definably Reductio ad absurdum, because no amount of only 0 sizes defines a size (finite or not), which is > 0.
Click to expand...
Any iteration can be reduced in such a way that the combined length of the line segments would equal to certain value, such as 1. You can see such a reduction in your drawing where the length of the segments for all cases keep constant. But you need to prove it, and what you came up with isn't the proof.
 
jsfisher said:
So, in doronetics, cardinality is not longer a unit?
Click to expand...
It is not my problem that the English language has limitations about this subject.

In Hebrew, it is perfectly legal to say, for example: 5 Meter, 20 Mater, 70 Amma (an old measurement unit, that can be found in the Bible) etc...

jsfisher, you waste your energy on insignificant details.
 
epix said:
Any iteration can be reduced in such a way that the combined length of the line segments would equal to certain value, such as 1. You can see such a reduction in your drawing where the length of the segments for all cases keep constant. But you need to prove it, and what you came up with isn't the proof.
Click to expand...

Take a 1-dim element with finite size X.

Bend it and get 4 equal sides along it.

Since the size between the opposite edges is changed to the sum of only 3 sides, and since the number of the sides after the first bending is 4 sides, we have to multiply the bended 1-dim element by 1/(the number of the sides after some bending), in order to get back the finite constant size X > 0, etc ... ad infinitum ... , as shown in the diagram below.

As a result each bended 1-dim element has finite constant size X > 0, but the size between its opposite edges becomes smaller (it converges), and used to define S=2(a+b+c+d+...) .

In general, S size is unsatisfied because the bended 1-dim element has finite constant size X > 0 upon infinitely many bended levels of:

4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In general, this convergent series of 1/(the number of the bended sides) is resulted by 1/1+1/4+1/16+1/64+1/256+... , which has no limit exactly because length X is invariant upon infinitely many convergent scales of that series:
Click to expand...

Really?

So the sum of a geometric series with a common ratio less than 1 does not have a limit?

...
 
Originally Posted by doronshadmi
In general, this convergent series of 1/(the number of the bended sides) is resulted by 1/1+1/4+1/16+1/64+1/256+... , which has no limit exactly because length X is invariant upon infinitely many convergent scales of that series:
Click to expand...

DazzaD said:
Really?

So the sum of a geometric series with a common ratio less than 1 does not have a limit?

...
Click to expand...

Errata:

∞
∑ 2-2i = 4/3
i=0

Doron had a hard day . . .
 
doronshadmi said:
It is not my problem that the English language has limitations about this subject.
Click to expand...

It is not a limitation of English. It is the pathetic ignorance of one Doron Shadmi.

In Hebrew, it is perfectly legal to say, for example: 5 Meter, 20 Mater, 70 Amma (an old measurement unit, that can be found in the Bible) etc...
Click to expand...

5 meters is a perfectly acceptable form in English...but that isn't what you said. You alleged 5 units of meter was correct, and that's why all the 5 year-olds laugh at you.

jsfisher, you waste your energy on insignificant details.
Click to expand...

Doron, you are the only one here who thinks effective communication is insignificant.

Moreover, this is all a diversion on your part to avoid admitting you were completely and utterly wrong declaring cardinality to be a unit of measure. The same holds for magnitude of existence. Where last you left it, you had "magnitude of existence means..." but then you followed it with gibberish.

Come on. Surely you can define something as simple and as basic to your reasoning as magnitude of existence, no?
 
jsfisher said:
It is not a limitation of English. It is the pathetic ignorance of one Doron Shadmi.
Click to expand...

I clearly demonstrated that 5 units of Meter (5 Meter) is perfectly legal in Hebrew.

Now we see that your reasoning abilities are limited to a particular case in English, such that you can't grasp the following sentence:

"1000 units of Meter are used to determine the "Length" of a given line."

Shame on you.

There is no wonder that you can't grasp, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6400287&postcount=11858 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6397061&postcount=11833.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In other words, you can't see anything in the following diagram, that has orange color:
Click to expand...


What are you trying to say, here, Doron? Is orange now the universal notation for X?

The 5 year-olds aren't all laughing at this one, Doron, but they are giggling a bit.
 
doronshadmi said:
I clearly demonstrated that 5 units of Meter (5 Meter) is perfectly legal in Hebrew.
Click to expand...

No you didn't. But even if you had and it is, it is irrelevant.

Now we see that your reasoning abilities are limited to English.
Click to expand...

Don't blame me for your inability to communicate effectively. Don't blame me for your inability to express complete thoughts.


Again: Cardinality is not a unit of anything, and magnitude of existence remains an undefined term of doronetics.
 
doronshadmi said:
Not even an hard second if you get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6400287&postcount=11858 .
Click to expand...

If I click, then this shows up . . .
Take a 1-dim element with finite size X.

Bend it and get 4 equal sides along it.
Click to expand...
If you junk that "1-dim element with finite size X" crap and use "baseline s0 = a" and proceed the way Koch did, then you take the line and cut it in 3 equidistant line segments:

_________|__________|___________


You see that 3 refers to the denominator of the limit of the sum. Then you turn the middle segment by 60 degrees up and add additional line segment to connect the form. Now you see 4 segments the number of which agrees with the numerator of the limit of the sum that you hold wrong. Since the combined length of the segments is greater than the original baseline s0, you need to apply a reduction formula to keep Iteration 0 = Iteration 1. The reduction formula is

Length of the baseline for Iteration N = a*3N/22N
Now the combined length of those 4-line segments of Iteration 1 equals the combined length of the 3-line segment of Iteration 0, which is the "non-bended" line.

Just take into account that your vaguely stated additional conditions can't alter the fact that the limit 4/3 of the sum is correct.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
No you didn't. But even if you had and it is, it is irrelevant.



Don't blame me for your inability to communicate effectively. Don't blame me for your inability to express complete thoughts.


Again: Cardinality is not a unit of anything, and magnitude of existence remains an undefined term of doronetics.
Click to expand...

Cardinality is exactly a measurement unit of the size (or magnitude) of existence.

I really do not care about your inability to grasp http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6397061&postcount=11833.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher said:
What are you trying to say, here, Doron? Is orange now the universal notation for X?

The 5 year-olds aren't all laughing at this one, Doron, but they are giggling a bit.
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6400515&postcount=11864.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6400202&postcount=11855.
Click to expand...


More of your rewriting of previous posts after people have commented on them, I see.

Also more of your quote one thing than see something complete unrelated I see, too.

Is all of your thinking this scrambled?
 
doronshadmi said:
It does not matter, it can be any constant and finite value > 0.

jsfisher or The Man may claim that there exists Koch's form with infinite constant value.

In that case there must be a form of constant size > 0, that is entirely defined by forms of 0 sizes, which is definably Reductio ad absurdum, because no amount of only 0 sizes defines a size (finite or not), which is > 0.
Click to expand...

Once again Doron, two points define a line segment, the “Reductio ad absurdum” still remains entirely yours.
 
epix said:
If I click, then this shows up . . .

If you junk that "1-dim element with finite size X" crap and use "baseline s0 = a" and proceed the way Koch did, then you take the line and cut it in 3 equidistant line segments:

_________|__________|___________


You see that 3 refers to the denominator of the limit of the sum. Then you turn the middle segment by 60 degrees up and add additional line segment to connect the form. Now you see 4 segments the number of which agrees with the numerator of the limit of the sum that you hold wrong. Since the combined length of the segment is greater than the original baseline s0, you need to apply a reduction formula to keep Iteration 0 = Iteration 1. The reduction formula is

Length of the baseline for Iteration N = a*3N/22N
Now the combined length of those 4-line segments of Iteration 1 equals the combined length of the 3-line segment of Iteration 0, which is the "non-bended" line.

Just take into account that your vaguely stated additional conditions can't alter the fact that the limit 4/3 of the above sum is correct.
Click to expand...
Just take to account that that S = 2(a+b+c+d+...) does not have a sum.
 
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher, I do not care about your limited agreement of the concept of Cardinality.

Kapish?!
Click to expand...


Translation #1: Since Doron has no idea how real Mathematics works, he'll just make up stuff.

Translation #2: Using established terminology would facilitate effective communication. Doron forbids it.
 
The Man said:
Once again Doron, two points define a line segment, the “Reductio ad absurdum” still remains entirely yours.
Click to expand...
A line segment is not less than 1-dim element and 0-dim elements.

I am talking about the claim that there is a form > 0 which is defined only by 0-dim elements, and I see that you (and jsfisher) simply can't grasp the Reductio ad absurdum of such a claim.
 
jsfisher said:
Translation #1: Since Doron has no idea how real Mathematics works, he'll just make up stuff.

Translation #2: Using established terminology would facilitate effective communication. Doron forbids it.
Click to expand...

Translation #1: Since jsfisher has some filing about the influence on the mathematical science, if Cardinality is used to directly measure Emptiness and Fullness, he does his best in order to eliminate such an influence.

Translation #2: I really do not care about his limited and orthodox approach of the considered subjects.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
A line segment is not less than 1-dim element and 0-dim elements.
Click to expand...

Technically and more specifically it is a “1-dim element” defined by (at least) two “0-dim elements”.

doronshadmi said:
I am talking about the claim that there is a form > 0 which is defined only by 0-dim elements, and I see that you (and jsfisher) simply can't grasp the Reductio ad absurdum of such a claim.
Click to expand...

Again a line segment (a “1-dim element”) is defined by two points (“0-dim elements”), the absurdities are again and remain entirely yours.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom